GREGORY LOCKETT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1989-08-31
No. 89-533
DANIEL, C.J., and COBB, J., concur., GOSHORN, J., dissents without opinion.
547 So. 2d 1292 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1989) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

In this case the appellant’s probation was revoked solely on the basis of his arrest for the offense of solicitation of prostitution. The trial court excluded testimony as to any verbal communications between the appellant and the arresting officer on the basis of a discovery violation. The evidence of arrest, standing alone, was insufficient. See Purvis v. State, 397 So. 2d 746, 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Brown v. State, 338 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

REVERSED. DANIEL, C.J., and COBB, J., concur. GOSHORN, J., dissents without opinion.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Good v. State, 11 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
    …ublic defender was ordered to file a supplemental initial brief addressing whether reversible error was committed when Appellant’s probation was revoked due to his arrest for DUI. We cited Hines v. State, 358 So. 2d 183 (Fla.1978); Lockett v. State, 547 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), and Purvis v. State, 397 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), which stand, overall, for the proposition that probation cannot be revoked based solely on proof of an arrest during the probationary period where the sole condition asser…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw